Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[phantom13]

In all seriousness and at the risk of being overly earnest.

If your argument is “I don’t think it will change anything” consider it this way.

Indigenous Australia overwhelmingly wants this, voting is mandatory.

So all it will cost you, to give indigenous Australians what they would like and take a punt this might help, even a little, is an extra letter on your ballot paper.

If it doesn’t work, you’re no worse off, might even lead to whatever the next logical step is.

Alternately you vote no and this fails and no politician will touch it again for quite some time cause the Australian public has made it clear we don’t care.

 

[Gibbke]

My issue is that I don't think it will make 2 knobs of wombat manure's difference to the actual lives of any Indigenous Australian.

Yes it will.

The current scenario is that indigenous affairs and programmes are administered and paid for using committees and groups that might only exist through political expediency. There are countless examples of white men deciding what aborigines need and then blindly paying for it - we know what that looks like. No one has to consult an aboriginal representative group, much the same way that Tony Abbott made himself the Minister for Women and then said his biggest contribution to Australian women was reducing their power bill...!

The Voice will be a mandated consultation, and through that stability they will make their positions clear, and unlike the Tent Embassy, parliament will actually have to write down what they say. They don't have to do it, they still have the centuries old Australian parliamentary right to tell the abos to piss off, but somewhere that constant presence should surely have some effect...! If the people needing the help are the ones at the highest level doing all the proposing, you get to the point of the issue...

If you vote No, mate, we'll never know...!

 

[ElectricG]

Indigenous Australia overwhelmingly wants this, voting is mandatory.

I think just about any group would largely vote in favour of more representation for themselves.

 

[Cmarsh]

Are people genuinely claiming that Aboriginal people don't, won't and can't be heard without a Voice to Parliament?

All the constant consultation, co-designs, Aboriginal impact statements, cultural safety considerations that already happen and have been happening for years across a broad range of government departments for Aboriginal impacted initiatives and projects don't actually happen?

I must be dreaming.

 

[Gibbke]

That's not how burden of proof works. Do you have evidence that the voice will improve anything?

Read my other one to Kram. You have as much evidence of the Voice working as any other predictive telling of the future...but what's happened so far hasn't worked and this should...!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I think just about any group would largely vote in favour of more representation for themselves.

And you are free to campaign for a voice for your people.

Why would you seek to block others from doing the same?

 

[Chief]

Are people genuinely claiming that Aboriginal people don't, won't and can't be heard without a Voice to Parliament?

All the constant consultation, co-designs, Aboriginal impact statements, cultural safety considerations that already happen and have been happening for years across a broad range of government departments for Aboriginal impacted initiatives and projects don't actually happen?

I must be dreaming.

Never having had anything to do with any of those processes, no heard of many, do you think those are effective as they are?

 

[ElectricG]

And you are free to campaign for a voice for your people.

Why would you seek to block others from doing the same?

If I proposed that “thirty-something white dudes who barrack for Port should have constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament” I think the broader population should absolutely have a right to vote it down.

 

[Gibbke]

Are people genuinely claiming that Aboriginal people don't, won't and can't be heard without a Voice to Parliament?

All the constant consultation, co-designs, Aboriginal impact statements, cultural safety considerations that already happen and have been happening for years across a broad range of government departments for Aboriginal impacted initiatives and projects don't actually happen?

I must be dreaming.

The common factor is that these are all white driven, and it's a long history of white Australia either telling aborigines what they need or simply paying for it, something, whatever the * it is. That's why you see indigenous liason officers driving around in government sponsored cars in the city but never out to the remote communities living in conditions of poverty that the UN knows are a concern (and then the aboriginals themselves become the stereotype of the government sponsored bludger even though that money isn't anywhere near them). It looks great on a politician's resume to have "actively implemented programmes in aboriginal affairs", which will change the minute the parties swap status - this does not translate necessarily into improvement and progress. The Voice is not a party, and doesn't disappear when a government changes - that's the point of it.

 

[Home Alone]

In fairness, we didn't have a referendum on those things. You vote for or against political parties on the totality of their package rather than single issues.

The equation is far more simple in a referendum.

No. The question the referendum is proposing is simple.
You are the one complicating it with election policy debate.

 

[Romeoh1]

Are people genuinely claiming that Aboriginal people don't, won't and can't be heard without a Voice to Parliament?

All the constant consultation, co-designs, Aboriginal impact statements, cultural safety considerations that already happen and have been happening for years across a broad range of government departments for Aboriginal impacted initiatives and projects don't actually happen?

I must be dreaming.

You appear not to have done even the most basic reading on how this has a chance to be different. See gibbke above.
And if all those measures you mention have consistently failed, why wouldn’t you try this new way that listens directly to the indigenous- who understand their needs better than anyone else does?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If I proposed that “thirty-something white dudes who barrack for Port should have constitutional recognition and a voice to parliament” I think the broader population should absolutely have a right to vote it down.

Interesting that you don't mention women or indigenous Port supporters.

What's this groups' ideology?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Carringbush2010

?

 

[evolved2]

Read my other one to Kram. You have as much evidence of the Voice working as any other predictive telling of the future...but what's happened so far hasn't worked and this should...!

Let's assume the Voice gets up and the LNP win the next election under Dutton.

What's stopping Dutton from having 'the voice' comprised of Jacinta Price?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Let's assume the Voice gets up and the LNP win the next election under Dutton.

What's stopping Dutton from having 'the voice' comprised of Jacinta Price?

He would need to pass legislation through both houses to do this.

 

[ElectricG]

Interesting that you don't mention women or indigenous Port supporters.

What's this groups' ideology?

That sounds like a detail - that’s not how referendums work. Why? Why do you wanna know? Huh? Huh? Didn’t see you asking this about the Renewable Energy Hub.

 

[Kwality]

You posted hateful misinformation.

I asked you to delete it.

You obviously knew it was a lie all along. And now you're desperate to paint yourself as a victim.

This is why you normally stick to posting vague nothings.

You should go back & read the discussion WITHOUT blinkers.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

That sounds like a detail - that’s not how referendums work. Why? Why do you wanna know? Huh? Huh? Didn’t see you asking this about the Renewable Energy Hub.

You will need a lot of details to even reach the referendum stage. How many pages have you got?

 

[ElectricG]

You will need a lot of details to even reach the referendum stage. How many pages have you got?

119

 

[phantom13]

You should go back & read the discussion WITHOUT blinkers.

I read your link and responded to it in a fair bit of detail. It wasn’t great and I don’t have blinkers on.

 

[Gralin]

Let's assume the Voice gets up and the LNP win the next election under Dutton.

What's stopping Dutton from having 'the voice' comprised of Jacinta Price?

Well seeing as we're making up bullshit scenarios and ignoring how government works, I'd veto it

 

[Home Alone]

You should go back & read the discussion WITHOUT blinkers.

Or you should go back and read the conversation with 'EYES WIDE OPEN'

 

[Ghost Patrol]

119

Congratulations. You now have an ideology that excludes women and Indigenous Port supporters.

Wouldn't you like to share it? If not, why not?

 

[Kwality]

Yet to see a single coherent, measured, base level of intelligence argument against the voice.

We’re 2 days from the vote.

Not.

One.

With due respect you are 'marking your own homework.' So busy wheeling your barrow to be dispassionate.

 

[phantom13]

With due respect you are 'marking your own homework.' So busy wheeling your barrow to be dispassionate.

I have no idea what that means but it’s a solid sidestep on your pointless link.